Nikon's new D810 consolidates the older D800 and D800E into a single body with no AA filter on its 36MP CMOS sensor and a range of refinements, both major and minor compared to its predecessors. A few days ago we received a final production sample Nikon D810 and we've been shooting with it intensely ever since. As well as putting it through our initial studio testing, we've also taken a quick look at the effectiveness of the new electronic first-curtain shutter and created a gallery of real-world sample images to show what the camera can do.

Comments

I am accustome d to large, heavy tripods for my 4X5. Since D810 has mirror up and electronic first curtain, can i use a much lighter tripod? I am used to working slowly, giving time for camera to settle down. Also will only be shooting 24-105mm lenses. How light can i go and still make full IQ of 36 mp?

My guess if i purchased light Sony A7R, would need my 4X5 tripod to settle down its agressive shutter shake.

OK DPR we've been patient. it's been 2 + months since the this first impressions review was published. Where is the review? Have you found something that Nikon would not like to see in print? Have politics intervened? Are you just overworked? Understaffed? What could it be that delays publishing the test results of this marvel?

May be DPR will be more cautious before giving 80+!Because after DPR giving Gold Ratings to FUJI FILM XT1--light leak discovered--same is happened in case of NIKON 610D--even some users complains about 610 WHEN THEY TRAVEL TO HIMALAYAS--

Viz. the lab report: To me it looks like the raw images of the D810 are the same as the raw images of the D800. This should not be so. I would like to suggest that dpreview stop using the 50mm lenses of Canon, Nikon and Sony and use the 55mm Zeiss Otus instead on tests of all 3 brands. This is not a lens test. It purports to be a sensor test. How can it be a sensor test when the D8xx sensors outresolve Nikon's 50mm lenses by a far margin? I guess people who upgrade to 810 also have Zeiss lenses and they would like to see what more they will get from the 810 that they do not already have in the D800 (e). If time permits: The Zeiss 15mm, 50mm and 135mm would be good choices. ( I only have the 35mm F2 ). This test would also show us what more we get from 36 Mpix that we do not already have from the 20-24 Mpix range. ( I have a good idea - but that is not a professional's opinion ).

Your comment is well taken, if the sensor outpaces the lens, then a test is pointless. Also, a single lens across all platforms would rule out differences being attributable to having used different lenses. Very important to control this source of review error. I hope DP takes your advice. And as I seriously hesitate to buy without having had an in-depth review by DP, sure would be nice to see it soon!!!

Cameralabs has a very good comparison: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_vs_Tamron_24-70mm_comparison/. I tested both, find the Nikon focuses faster and behaved better when shooting into the sun. As to DXO: look at the curves: Tamron is better for wide angle shots, wheres Nikon takes over from 50-70mm, so depends on your needs.Another thing: if you want to use fine tuning, only ONE lens of a non-Nikon company can be tuned. All others use the same preset (or you remember it and set it to the desired value everytime you shoot). In case you add a macro or other lens, it's good to know that.

I know i will need to get into menu to set up for non cpu lenses. Do i have to go back into menu every time i change lenses, or does connections and memory in camera remember the lens attached? It would be frustrating and time consuming if have to dive into menu to make settings every lens change. If so, might be forced to buy new set of lenses.

Concerning Lab Report No 10.What does this say (if anything) about shutter vibration caused sharpness issues when using a shutter speed higher than 1/80 sec? Will a higher shutter speed eliminate the shutter vibration caused sharpness issues? if so, at what shutter speed will all vibration issues be eliminated?orAre there shutter vibration issues at all shutter speeds, and the only way to eliminate them is by using the mirror up mode ?

Pity that in true DPR fashion we have plenty of people with sour grapes everywhere on this comments section. I guess that is what it is. However, if people get put off by that they are missing a treat...

Thank you for your experienced reply. Also for your user website. Gives me good reasons to purchase. Interesting that there is only overall complimentary websites on D810, but only in DP Review so many have no better thing do do but bash the camera. The more great cameras, the more griping trolls.

@Galbertson: I'm not sure if your commentas directed at mine, but if it was, you misunderstood me by a country mile. I wasn't bashing the 810, nor your praise for it, at all. It happens a lot on the net.The 810 is an incrementally better camera than the 800/E on every imagineable front. At least, that's my opinion after having tried it a few times.

Sorry, my poor eyesight mistakenly responded, intended for sgoldswo. I have .been noticing how many positive responses to the D810.. It has every single function i need to at times replace my 4X5. The only thing missing is articulating LCD. But would get 5" external monitor. Its peeking feature would help me see for focus, apparently not available on camera. Still will need my magnifiers to help me read words of menu. I do not have central "target" eyesight, but compose with perifera portion. Not easy, and needing assisting tools to improve camera operation.

The tactile feel and function of contols and buttons tremendously important, the D810 appear excellent, but will only know when in my hands. I have had many cameras in my hands, can honestly say Fuji X-T1 has buttons for baby fingers, tiny and no sense of activation. Cannot afford to make that mistake.

Yes, I noticed in some other entries that your eyesight is impaired; you're not to be envied for that. My father was an enthousiast photographer, and when at 75-80 his eyesight went, it took a lot out of him. I admire how you're coping. Difficulties are put in your way to overcome them I suppose.

The D810 is an excellent camera, and I hope and expect it will work for you like that.

No, I had the 800, and now have the 800E, not the 810, but I'm guessing they work the same in that respect. You select image quality (f.i. Raw + Jpeg) and primary and secondary card selection. Maybe in the 810 you can choose a combination of high res and lower res Raw, and send to cf and sd respectively; you'd have to look in the menu.

Mike,Appreciate your more than you might image. Have studied in depth the world of blindness. For some fortunate reason, my compositions have refined and matured. Magic happens I guess.

D810 question...if shooting hi res raw image, can i set up camera to automatically load a low res jpeg into CF card? Or do I have to go into menu to set the camera, then shoot the same image again? My hi res files for large printing use. The low res jpegs for web , cataloging and emailing. I have a good fried who does my post work, but I would hope to not depend on him to downsize from raw files for my low res use, would hope to download jpegs directly from camera to my iPad.

MikeDarnit, sorry didnt catch your answer to my question.One thing about loss of eyesight is screwing up...just something to get accustomed to. I might call tech support to confirm. Camera still ideal for me.

Have you seen the moiré on the tests? Look at the close-up of the b-w picture on the left. It is a deal breaker for me. The Canon does not have such an issue. The picture is completely clean.

The most worrying is that it is also present for the D800 and D800E.

BTW I am not a Canon troll. I am a real Nikon fan since decades. I and have bought several Nikon bodies so far plus several lenses, and no Canon. But moiré puts me really off. I am not talking about video where the amount of moiré is ridiculous.

i wonder why they make the sample shoots with all this zooms and not with a good prime ! I got my D810 on the first day it was released, just can tell you the samples here showed on DP are not the max you can get out of this camera !

"i wonder why they make the sample shoots with all this zooms and not with a good prime !" Ans: My guess is to hit the widest available market, and because if the camera needs a top lens (crutch), then it is not such a good camera. They need to show where the capability of the camera ends and to do that, they need to test the camera, not the lens.

I have reservations about the "Real World" sample photos presented here. What are the sample photos suppose to illustrate? Good looking pictures does not mean anything for evaluating the camera performance because there is no basis of comparison. As for the processed RAW, what does it proved regarding the camera capability? If the purpose is to illustrate the dynamic range, then the three or four samples illustrate the shortcoming of this D810. I have gotten better results of high and varying lighting condition from my D800 than the samples shown in this review. It seems to me that the shooter did not set the HDR properly.

Is the purpose of the sample photos is to compare the D810 against the D800 and D800E, then why not make a side-by-side shots from all three cameras? The comparison to the Canon camera shows the lack of knowledge by the tester because there is no common and controlled basis of comparison. Moreover, it is not relevant.

@Inthe Mist - In the 2003-2006, DPR used to present a side-by-side photos of subject taken by cameras being compared against one another. Shots were of identical setting from identical lenses. Test charts were also used. The side-by-side photos illustrates the tester's point and removed reliance on memories. As I recall, the photographs were NOT post processed. . . I wonder if you recall those times.

Oh yes, REAL WORLD photos of outdoor scenes, bridges, buildings, lakes/rivers/mountains, sporting events . . . name it. The point is the "side-by-side" comparison of JPEG files right off the camera. While you did not mention RAW, I have nothing against raw files, only that I prefer to compare the ability of the camera on the consumer's view point. Of course D800/800E/810 are not for the average consumer who thinks that raw applies to how their food is prepared.

For some reason the D810 isn't as sharp as the A7R and contrast isn't as defined. I thought DPReview used the same lens for these tests? idk but can definitely see a difference. Weird. I'm also surprised at how much moire the D810 is generating compared to the A7R.

"DPReview.com is kindly brought to you by the Nikon Corporation."This blatant infomercialising should be beneath this site. It really is beyond insulting. Why should we have any other reviews? I mean, it's not like any other camera in history has ever been as important as the D810.

Without focus peeking, how would i see expanded areas before shootin to see total focus area in broad landscapes? I have limited eyesight and use 15X loupe to see focus on my 4X5.

I have read(i cannot see to read, only recognizing word shape with large magnifier, but use Voicr Over on iPad to speak the words) that external monitors have image peeking. That might be the answer...yes?

I'm looking for how the D810 moves groups of focus points around like the D200, D300, and D700 do. It is advertized but there is not a sign of it here. I do hope this really is included in the full review, because it is a huge factor in photography.The Group AF option on a D700 is excellent and so much easier to use than any of Canon's slow two-stage options. It will be the biggest factor in purchase options for many, as mis-focussing is inevitable on occasion when you have zero AF control of where the focus goes, as with the D800(E) and D7100. I am certainly hoping Nikon supply a firmware fix, as that would be easy using the pad that only works ( and so slowly!) using manual focus (and just one point).

This is more important than anything else! As to moire, well, I get moire with my D800 quite often.It's a normal occurrence.Had I known, I would have an E got! Using Capture NX2 I remove it, so moire is a non-issue except for video, and well you can just defocus a little?

best SLR camera out there IQ wise, if you are a spray and pray sport photographer, then you have D4s or 1dxBut for now, there are no competition regarding , metering, resolution, DR, AF, etc etc. Nice work Nikon

I have not seen a D810. I am curious about comments made regarding vibration at some shutter speeds with the D800(E) models. What are these shutter speeds please, as I have no VR lenses yet have not ever seen this phenomenon using a D800. I have had blurred due to my movement and/or subject movement. And blurred due to the lens being imperfectly focussed, but nothing as described here that I can see.

Nikon removed the filters as at this magnification you can see that everything is slightly off-at all speeds. That said I have not ever been able to detect a visible difference in resolution-just micro-contrast and acuity.tight 0.2 pixel @ 400% USM deals with that.

the ISO performance is as good as you can get at this price. if ISO performance is what you are looking for then look no further.

FYI, I am a Canon user but I currently have a D810 in my possession. ISO performance definitely shits all over Canon but I still find that my 5D Mark III units are more complete cameras and easier to use.

It's really great, at least the jpegs out of the camera are—Adobe is still fine tuning its raw converter. But I've shot a lot at 6400 and they're wonderful as long as you look at them as photos and don't go all nerdtastic over them... If you zoom in to 200 percent they're a little grainy but nothing that makes them unusable. And if you set your masking at 80 or 90 percent in ACR they're awesome.

I sold my D800 to a friend and got the D810 over the weekend. In my opinion, it's absolutely worth it, mostly for the improved mirror mechanism--much less vibration and it's so much quieter. With far less mirror vibration, focus acuity is noticeably improved, and I can bring my shutter speeds down without any fear of the slight blur that I would sometimes get out in the field with my D800, and which relegated it to mainly studio shooting for me. All the little changes have added up to a greatly enhanced shooting experience--the D810 is a camera I'm enthusiastic to take anywhere, under any shooting conditions--Fashion, Landscape, event work, etc. I'm still just getting into the camera, but so far it just feels wonderful, with no niggling issues whatsoever.

Another question...if using EyeFi card, will iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch work as extermal monitor? Will controls operate camera wirelessly from one of these devices? This might solve my need for external monitor that Hoodman loupe works on.

@Galbertson First, I haven't used EyeFi, so I'm not able to directly answer your question. My guess is that EyeFi is for the transfer of files, rather than remote control via iPad/etc. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

The CamRanger product may be of interest to you... I have no affiliation whatsoever to the company that produces it; I just thought this link may be helpful:

As long as I understand EyeFi is only to transfer photos directly from your camera which is using the EyeFi SD Card to your mobile or other gadget so that you can send the photos directly to your friends and family. Also to empty you cards directly to iPad or other gadgets.

Okay, i understand. But assume there is a way to connect and use iPad as external monitor. But my most important question is if the Voice Over function on iPad speaks words when fingers touches screen. I am still waiting for Apple to introduces MacBooks or iMacs with touch screen/Voice Over. Then i could do my own post of raw files. I can see color, but need lots of magnification to see sharpness. But still cannot read words unless Voice Over speaks to me. I accept this rare issue.

When attaching external monitor to D810, does it disble lcd on camera?

Ideally want 3.2" external monitor, but not made. Because of very limited eyesight, need to use magnifying lcd hood, such as Hoodman. Since D810 does not have articulating lcd, seeking ideas. I even thought purchasing articulating lcd from D5300, but not sure if electronics compatible, plus no technician to manufacture with hdmi out cable.

Too much people don't catch that with cameras having over 20 megapixels there a real need to calibrate the lenses for a specific body. The best thing to do with Nikon or Canon Camera is to bring the lenses and the body to an expert technician that will make very fine tunings. This is of a prime importance with a body such Nikon D800 or D810. With 36 megapixels, it can be pretty easy to mess with focus if anybody doesn't understand well that matter.

I bought lately a Sigma 50mm, f/1.4 Art and a Sigma 17-70, f2.8-4 Contemporary. I am using these lenses with a Nikon D7100. I bought too the Sigma USB Dock to calibrate the lenses. It is really easy to use. I used a Datacolor target to better identify the back or front focus at many distance for predetermined focals on my zoom lens, as an example. The whole procedure is too long here to describe, but if you would like to know more, there is lots of valuable informations on the internet. It makes a huge difference. Really accurate!

Troll on the roll'? Nice bashing...but just think about who makes many of "Nikon" Sensors - Sony! You must be a die hard Nikon Fan, i like the brand since the 80s - but i enjoy my A7 way much, and it's not sh*t - way silly comment of yours.

Which particular entry are you referring to Marc? It was probably in jest. I maybe a longterm Nikon user (although there once was a Leica M5 in my life, and there still is a Contax RTSIII), but I don't consider myself to be a fanboy, and really dislike bashing other brands in the process.

But to be honest, you wouldn't catch me using a viewfinderless or EVF-equipped camera (nor an SLR with a porthole viewfinder).

it was more to the bottom, but there was no "Reply" button, so i wrote it just on top - you said it that way. I'm way happy to have a FF DSLM with my old lenses. The RTS III - was a dream since my teenage days...someday i'd buy one as collector item for my camera collection. If i'd be a billionaire, i would resurrect the Contax brand from the dead & just develop HighEnd DSLR/DSLM under the Contax brand.

I do like a OVF much more then an EVF, but it does have it's advantages - live histrogramm, picture playback into the EVF,Zebra Mode, etc..the EVF from the A7 is great, but at the endof the day, i'd like to look through the OVF from my D7000 more.

I tried the OMD, X-T1 and A7 in a shop, and was frankly very disappointed by the glimmer, and the noticeable building-up of the image when you swayed the camera. I really don't see any advantage, but I'm old (my first camera was a Werra, very small plain viewfinder) and probably oldfashioned.

Speaking of viewfinders, the D800's not bad, but certainly doesn't reach the level of that of my F2AS or my RTSIII... ;-)

It's comparing pear & apples - 2 years ago the A7R have been into the works. The D810 is a great DSLR, but let's face it - DSLR technology would simply fade away within the next years - too heavy, too big, etc...even the IQ is a bit better, i'd prefer the A7R all time over the D810..why? because i wouldn't travel with such heavy gear...and very expensive FX glas, for Studio, Fashion & Landscape Photography the D810 is *the* King, perfect...but for light traveling, mounting any old mf lens with adapter, and saving a lot of money - the A7R rulez.

I've disliked every EVF I've met in a serious camera. Who knows it's a personal thing.

As for weight and size: 6D/Df/D610/D750(?) are approaching the optimum for a full frame (SLR) camera. Anyone finding that "too heavy!" will have to do with inferior ergonomics and handling, and will find that less mass makes for more blur. The RX1 still is a very nice, albeit flawed, camera though.

I walk around with a D800E, usually just one prime, wriststrap, no problem, Tumi messenger bag with a Billingham insert, an iPad and some accoutrements. I would never give that up for a small light awkward body (I'm not speaking about the lenses; that's something else again).

Word on the forums is that the D810 improvements are most welcome and really make working with the camera much more enjoyable. The improved Live View is receiving high praise and is a great asset for landscape and architectural users. The quieter and smoother shutter also.

Who cares about D810, we already know what Nikon is capable of.I just shot with 2 D800e over 3000 photos in 4 days in really lousy conditions and not a single photo is out of focus!!!!! Two years ago I was doing the same with Canon 5D2, 5D3 and 7D and I had lots OOF.So there is absolutely no reason making any complaints about D810 because it should be even better.

The proof is in the pudding. It is certainly better than Canon 5D III which I used for a year with D800e. And Canon claim that 5D III has the same AF system as in 1DX. But 1DX has better processor so AF in it is better. Pro friend of mine has 1DX and we compared AF with my D800e and could not really determine which one is better. In over 2 years I have shot with one D800e body close to 100K (already have 20K on the second body) I am only getting few OOFs and all of them my fault. I just don't see anything better than that. No left AF point problem either.

I'd love to personally peruse 3,000 images shot at f/1.4 (or even at f/2.8) that are all perfectly in focus, LOL.

As a professional post-producer who edits plenty of images, (and as someone who teaches entire workshops on the subject of autofocus alone) ...I have to say, you're full of it. Yes, the D800 / D800e are amazing. But no, they're not perfect. They miss focus all the time, in tough conditions. They're not impervious to front / back-focus, either. I've used plenty of fast Nikon AFS-G primes, and Sigma Art lenses, and the results are the same. There is room for improvement, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, I think that improvement comes in the form of hybrid AF using an EVF, but that's just my personal experience. (As someone who tests and reviews cameras for another well-known website, BTW...)

All together I shot over 120k images with 2 cameras and there is hardly any OOF. That is why I got rid of Canon entirely. I have plenty images with Sigma 85mm F1.4 of actors being interview in low light and as long as I pre-focus and wait until peek movement stop I get perfectly focused shot. Same thing with F2.8 lenses (70-200mm and 120-300mm) at very close distances.You know what they say: If you CAN you DO and if you CAN'T you teach or review.

Why does dpreview dribble out their testing in pitiful fragments instead of presenting us with a complete review? It is a habit that suggests, sloth, stupidity, understaffing... many possibilities, none correlating with competence or pride in a job properly done!I'm f'in' sick of it! (emits loud Brooklyn raspberry sound, followed with some quality Philly boos!!!)

Unfortunately, as someone who works in this industry as well, I have to say this is just the nature of the social media beast. It's becoming more and more normal to produce content in this manner. Personally I'm not a fan, but I do understand the system and why it is implemented this way...

A full review will come when it is done. It simply couldn't be done this quickly. DPR's reviews are incredibly thorough, and probably take many days / man-hours to accomplish.

The dribble creates more copy (why produce 1 article when you can produce 3), anticipation ( to bring back readers), and most importantly, increased advertising opportunities.It IS crap, and the price of admission at DPR...and, just one of the many dark corners of capitalism displayed.

@sierranvin and StevenMajor - I totally fail to see how the timely delivery of studio and real-world samples, plus initial findings regarding handling and image quality could ever be regarded as a bad thing. As for the nonsense about 'creating copy' that's just sheer ignorance (each page is after all only published once...) and ditto 'advertising opportunities'.

If you really, really REALLY just want to wait for the full review, you're totally free to go ahead and wait. But characterizing this kind of content as 'pitiful fragments' is offensive and wrong-headed.

OK, Barney, let's approach it from a different tack:please explain why you don't release full reviews, prompt and complete, rather than bits and pieces, spread across weeks?All you did in the above was act as a vigorous apologist for the status quo, it didn't explain anything!As for "wrong-headed" - that sounds like Tennyson's description of someone who opined the French rather than the British should have attained colonialist hegemony over India. Of course thinking the French should have ruled India was simply wrong-headed! But I still think reviews parsed out as crumbs and morsels days and even weeks apart rather than arriving as one timely cupcake is annoying and cheap from a Google-owned company! Why not use some of your billions, Dr. Evil!

"please explain why you don't release full reviews, prompt and complete, rather than bits and pieces, spread across weeks?"

Because if we did that, you'd be waiting for quite a long time to read anything, meanwhile lesser competitors suck up all of the interest in the product and the final piece lands with a dull thud of more-or-less indifference.

As has already been (correctly) pointed out, our reviews represent a lot of work, and that work takes time. Our thinking is that we may as well provide you with as much as we can, in as timely a manner as possible.

Well, I thank you for an explanation. I have a life, and prefer to visit the website less frequently, and find and get what I need when I do steal time from my life to visit- i.e., one visit per new camera, not three visits. The "crumb and morsel" method is one potential strategy, and I respect your at least explaining why. I still don't like it; not liking it DOESN'T make me "wrong-headed"; good businesses like Eddie Bauer and Nordstrom actually listen to their customers, as opposed to berating them with Victorian opprobrium! I suggest you have one or more part time employees charged with showing up for a couple days' intense technical work when a significant new camera release occurs. This might allow you to complete a prompt review. Really, for billion dollar Google to do otherwise SO points to Stephen Major's "let's string'em out and make 'em visit again and again " increased ad revenue theory! Deeds, not words!!!

I'm not sure where your reference to 'Google' comes from (we have no relationship with that company) and I'm sorry if you took offense at 'wrong-headed' but to put it in context, this was in reaction to your somewhat uncharitable characterization of our publishing philosophy as 'slothful, stupid and incompetent'.

Ultimately, if you want to wait for a full review before reading anything, you're entirely free to do so.

Yeah, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, we're all grist for the corporate mill in the sky...You're not encouraged to acknowledge you're owned by Amazon, then, I take it? Amazon, not Google, yet ... SCHMOOGLE .. Who cares? The point, which you continue to minimize, is that your site, owned by the megacorp Amazon with a market cap of $147 billion could certainly produce timelier and complete results if anyone felt it was a priority. Also, pretty uncool how you've twisted my original criticism around from what was actually stated. Bogus.

"The point, which you continue to minimize, is that your site, owned by the megacorp Amazon with a market cap of $147 billion could certainly produce timelier and complete results if anyone felt it was a priority"

&HowaboutRaw: at the lower to medium ISO's it shows so much detail it can be embarrassing. I shot some new female colleagues for our website a while ago, amd the detail the 85/1.4G gave at f4.0 with the D800 was slightly frightening. Some details you'd rather not see, and I wished I'd put on my old 85/2.0Ai... ;-)

Well, to go into a bit more detail: it didn't matter anyhow as they were destined to be converted to a coarse b&w for that website, but looking at the RAW's, even after my customary sharpening and a bit more luminance reduction than usual to soften things up a bit I was still wondering if one of the subjects regularly shaved her chin, if you get my drift. Ambient lighting outside in front of the office didn't help either I guess, although there was no direct light involved. I can't compare to any other camera as I don't use those...

All I can say is that painters have known since the Renaissance to avoid reproducing every small detail. And when one sees a painting with the wrong details in exacting execution it can be disconcerting. Similarly not good scenic back grounds can have these problems--explaining why good scenic painters earn a good living.

More recently, since about 2005: Why do you think those street photos of Hollywood types rarely look like the images in movies?

A Zeiss, or very good Sigma, lens could improve things with the Nikon D800, the "problem" details will still be there, but they won't jump out as much since those lenses do better colour than even good Nikon lenses. What this means is that a Zeiss sees the subtle color differences around the detail so it's lost in gradations. And of course some Zeiss MF lenses aren't real sharp, like the old 50mm f/1.4.

Interesting points, and you obviously speak from vastly more experience than I have.

I've contemplated going back to Zeiss mf zf.2 lenses more than once (I've had them) but decided against that. AF suits me with a DSLR, and I find the 24, 35, 58 and 85 1.4G primes I use have their own character that's certainly not just neutral or clinical. So I'm sticking with these, and will just try to optimize the AF.

@HowaboutRaw: yes there are, I know that, Zeiss glass seems to give you an extra dimension; I had the 2.0/35, 1.4/50, 2.0/50 Makro-Planar amd the 1.4/85 for my D700 and D800. The last Zeiss to go was the Makro-Planar and the new 58 Nikkor came in; just couldn't resist. That's one h*ll of a challenging lens, but I wouldn't let it go now I've learned to use it. For my type of portraiture it's invaluable; for anything else it might be deemed mediocre at best. The 85 might be just too sharp for flattering portraiture; I actually don't use it a lot. The 58 just seems to cover most of my bases in that respect.

I've been using the D800e for the past wedding season, and just took the D10 out to a huge Hindu wedding ceremony. LOVE it! I use it in 1.5 DX crop mode for telephoto shots when I don't need all that detail, and I use it FX for large group portraits of 5+ people and / or wide-angle portraits etc. The D800e was, and the D810 is, the ULTIMATE wedding camera.

(And this is coming from a die-hard dual-D700 user who SWORE never to upgrade, BTW.)

I've shot plenty of weddings with D800 and I can't imagine why it's capture of detail would be an issue. Detail can easily enough be softened in Raw to JPG workflow where desired to be flattering to people, and retained where it benefits, such as venue, decorations, flowers, large groups, etc.

And what Nikon has over Sony is a fantastic selection of lens that will actually AF on the camera. If you want great selection, your pretty much stuck with third party. Course, most if it wont af worth a hill of beans on those adaptors, but what they hey, you can take pictures of statues.

I have repaired cameras and lenses back in the the mid-1960s. Before adapters were commercially available, I machined various adapters for Asahi Pentax, Canon, Miranda, Kodak Retina, Nikon, Minolta lenses. I did that as a hobby and favor to friends. Time became a scares commodity when I started working for a living that I did not have time to repair camera or make lens adapters.

I had collections of Leica, Minolta, Retina, Canon, Nikon, Konica, Asahi camera and lenses. I DONATED most of my gears in the mid-1980s, keeping only the Nikon body and Nikkor lenses. I started easing back to serious photography in 2002 with an inexpensive digital Minolta, then "SLR-like" Lumix. Because of my compliment of Nikkor prime lenses, I purchase a D90. Successfully use all my "ancient" Nikkors on the D90. My three latest toys are the D5100, D600 and D800. I wish I kept the Summicron lens.

I am not a "fanboy" of any manufacturer. Each camera and system has merits. Happy clicking ... Enjoy!

@ Galbertson - Thanks for the compliment. NIKONIANS is a Nikon user's group I stumbled upon in November 2013. There are FREE and PAID Membership, I assume the benefits for each type is self explanatory. Nikonian posted a Nikon body V Nikkor lens compatibility matrix.

It is evident that I used my vintage Nikkors on D90 some 8 years before reading the Compatibility Matrix. All my "ancient" Nikkors has the Indexing Fork. I took the fork out to ensure against damaging the camera. I don't know if AI lens has Indexing Fork. You know what to do if it has. Also check the lens for contact terminals. You MIGHT need to apply a dub of nail polish to insulate the terminal. My Nikkors do not have terminals.

If you want to experiment, I suggest you buy a used D40, 50, … 3100. You should be able to get a used one for under $100, perhaps as low as $50.

I posted ways to get sharper images (not sure if it was yesterday or early today). To save time, search for my post.

I have gone through many reviews regarding Nikon D810--but the summery may be like this--This camera is the house of technical upgrade,but not in noise!

Am I correct?

I am not a pro-technical man to give certificate to Nikon D810--but my opinion is removal of Anti-Aliasing filter is creating a new problem--moire is seen in cloths etc--and though pics are more clear,but due to Moire Nikon is finding an solution --!

I am also noticing that Nikon D810's pics are little colourless,faded as Compared to 800E/800?My observations may not be correct!But My final words--Nikon D810 is technically best camera of Nikon,but We can not certify that it is 100% stunning--some faults are here!

Are you making judgments based on images in reviews? That's generally a mistake.

AA filters were needed, even vital, back when digital sensors were comparatively low in resolution - 2 megapixels, even 8 megapixels. As resolutions increase, they become increasingly unnecessary.

I owned and used a Leica M9 for a while, and I owned and used a D800e for two years. Moire has not been a problem (however, I mostly shoot models without nasty moire-inducing clothing). I am looking forward to seeing how much better the D810 is than the D800e - no AA filter is better than half a filter and a reversal.

There are other benefits I have already discovered - the shutter is much more discreet, for example.

It's not perfect. The strap that comes with it is rather cheap and nasty - disappointing.

Ofcourse--yes--because--though it is a mistake--but I have no option--since to buy and give a review--difficult thing from me--but My opnion is moire is problem for NIKON and they must solve this problem and noise of Nikon D810!If@ISO560--noise is obvious--why I should buy giving more than $3000 us dollar?This price is great for me to bear--I must take a loan from Bank before buy this camera at high price!--Thanks for your opinion--

Your opinion is that moire is a problem, even though you have never tried using the camera. Have you any experience with any digital camera without an AA filter? Have you used a D800e?

I have over two years experience using the D800e, and moire was never a problem. I had almost a year of experience using the Leica M9 (no AA filter) and moire was not a problem. I have several days experience with the D810, and I haven't seen a problem yet :)

I do not think moire is an issue for Nikon. I'm not the only one - there are quite a few articles discussing moire on the D800e, and some of the reviews of the D810 make a particular point of mentioning the subject.

Most important point, though - if the D810 is too much of a commitment for you, then don't buy it. Buy a camera you can afford comfortably. I understand wanting the best, and I have over-committed myself in the past. Don't do it.

Infact I was worried when I read the reviews that ISO PERFORMANCE @100% crop becomes noisy,and pics are seems little dull in videos --thanks for your kind comments and sharing experiences with Nikon D810---<and you are very correct on over committment---I trust one thing--the man behind the camera...>

issac sam--truth can not be neglected;no Nikon D800 was bought in my District,it is not France,England,USA,or metro cities--we read reviews--we depend on reviews--there is still to develop photography as industry here--we are trying to develop it among people,even children--so pl do not comment harsh--after spending the all money , taking a loan from bank I wish a best camera--in my place there are no servicing centres,no big shops--;;so who will give a camera in rent?--so We are bound to follow the couch like DPR--otherwise what is the use of DPREVIEW?

Then it become all the more important that you test the camera extensively at your dealer. I too do not have options to rent, but spend quite a lot of time at the dealer to make an educated practical assessment. Not everything that you see/read on the Internet is true. If you are purchasing online after reading comments on the Internet, then I wish you all the best.

In fact,--if DPREVIEW is not biased,and since they do scientifically-so we usually follow dpreview.Another method--I ask my friends about a camera before buying--so when a camera comes new--it is our problem--there is no dealer here,no rental--in such situation what could I do?You are stretching the practical touch,but here in my place it is tough to touch a Nikon D810!MAY BE A Nikon 5200/canon 7D--but not high end cameras!--like Canon Mark1v series!Any how--thanks for your comment!

I never really had a use for the "Qual" or WB" buttons. If they just had a 2-button thing for metering and ISO, I might get one of these. O.K., I'm not telling the truth. I'll still get one of these, despite too many buttons. :)

@Mr.,Physics - Do you have D800/E and never used the Qual nor WB buttons? I use these two buttons (on my D800) frequently. Naturally, you could set or change the size/ quality and the WB by other means such as going thru the menu each time,or creating My Menu, or performing Custom Settings (A, B, C, D).

If there is one button I find redundant, it is the OK button because the center button on the multi-selector is also an OK switch.

I'm a D700 and RAW recording guy so it makes sense for me to be in 14 bit compressed NEF always. I've always tweaked the WB in post processing and generally leave the WB in auto.

I've been wondering if the quality and range of actual light data captured would be better if I'd simply select an appropriate WB at capture time but never had the ambition to study this question in detail. I wouldn't know where to start. We have the options of direct sunlight, shade and cloudy but there doesn't seem to be an in camera compensation to accommodate the difference in the Sun's light from bright mid-afternoon to the red-ish orange of dusk. When I find myself with mixed source lighting indoors (often a combination incandescent and florescent lighting) I don't have a clue what option to pick at capture time. I usually choose "Auto" and sort it out in post processing. So I haven't ever used the WB and QUAL buttons.

Mr. Physics - Physics was my favorite subject in High School that my classmates called me "Senyor P6" . . . no I am not Hispanic.

I have never used a D700 so I don't know the choices for it. I use the WB button in D600 and D800 when on artificial light such Sodium Vapor, Florescent and Tungsten (Incandescent) other than that I just live it at Auto. Outdoor, I want to capture the mode be it sunrise, sunset, cloudy, sunny so I don't bother making changes.

The Qual button is a faster way for selecting the type: RAW, TIFF, Fine, Standard, Normal, Basic AND the size (pixels): Large, Medium, Small. The front and rear wheel is used with the Qual button.

If I were you, I would not waste my money of D800/810 for the QUAL and WB buttons. I believe the D700 has "My Menu". Simply add these two functions if they are important to you.

BTW - for me, D90 and D300 maybe the best DX format camera. I am able to use ALL my 40+ year old Nikon F prime lenses.

"This is good news, although for D800 shooters it might leave a slightly bitter taste in the mouth (there's really no reason why the D800's JPEGs couldn't look sharper, too with tweaked firmware)."

Despite a nice and fair review the above statement is complete nonsense imho. The jpgs can be very, very sharp from the d800, but I'm not sure who would ever shoot jpegs with any of the D8xx series, well yes, I think Ken Rockwell would :-)

JPEGs from the D800 are not as sharp and detailed as those from the D800E and D810, even at apertures where diffraction removes any distinction in raw image quality. We demonstrated this in our review of the D800/E.

Still wouldn't matter. The images from the D800 compared to the E look almost like the camera lens lacks contrast or suffers from some minor spherical aberration. For lack of a better term, D800E images look "less veiled."

I am still wondering whether the new CLARITY feature in Picture Control modes is one reason that D810 images have greater apparent sharpness. Clarity increases mid tone contrast making images appear sharper. (No previous camera includes this feature).

@AnHund - your last statement sound like you are thumbing down on those who are contented shooting Jpeg. While I am not impressed by Ken Rockwell, I feel you are claiming you are better than him. Is it possible you are trying to bring him down to your level?

I set my SD card to record Jpeg and the CF to record NEF. Very seldom do I have to post process but when I do, it is not to pixel peep. The various settings available in D800 at my disposal gives me the image I want to create. The six basic picture control setting by itself gives the user control on the sharpness. Each of this setting can be tweak to suit individual TASTE of preference.

I also select the appropriate lens I fell is best suited to express the mode of the photograph I want to create.

@ecube - I think I learned a lot from KR, but one thing I would suggest, is never to shoot jpegs only (like KR always suggests), because that limits your possibilities of changing your images at a later time.

Raincheck time people. IF there is an increase in resolution you will not see it. You will see increased microcontrast and acuity, no more than that. Yes, it is a lot, it is quite a big improvement, but all current lenses have no more than 16MP across the frame resolution at best, including Nikon's dream team (dream on!) and the best Zeiss and Sigma Art offerings.

We are nowhere near what a 36MP sensor can resolve yet, and the impression of greater resolution is due to size-to magnification, not resolution, so people who keep using their D800s gain enormously as when that day comes that they actually do manufacture decent enough lenses they will have saved up to be able to buy one!!

Nikon have a "damned cheek" increasing the price over the D800 and D800E, since this D810 is what they SHOULD have "given" (LOL) us in the 1st place!

Lens Rentals tested the superior Canon 24-70 II on the 5dIII to Nikon's 24-70 on the D800 and found that the higher resolution sensor allowed for a greater resolving ability across the board. Even mediocre lens's will benefit from higher resolution.

you need to check out Photozone de. and DXO mark tests. You there will see for yourselves that the 16MP Fuji APS-C sensor resolves more than 3000. When I had a 1Ds MkII (16.7MP) no lens Canon made could outresolve the sensor except in very small areas at specific apertures. I use both a D800 and a D7100 and despite having very good optics indeed, and having bought used and returned all dream team lenses (as simply not sharp enough) I have not yet used a lens that can resolve 36MP at all, not by a huge margin, and I have 105mm macro and 85mm primes. The advantage with nothing in the way of the lens is however obvious- you do not need to sharpen your images at all. They are already as sharp as can be. Now do you see how the 1 stop improvement in high iso noise comes about, as sharpening ALWAYS increases image noise, which then requires noise reduction and the pics go soft again.The Canon 5D MkIII, like the MkII I bought and returned smooths away low contrast detail- and resolution!

As to the 24-70mm f2.8 , if you divide the image area like a noughts and crosses game into nine rectangles, then the lens at 24mm is only ever sharp in that central ninth area. You are inside a sphere of lens curvature. The sphere you are inside can only contact the image field where it is focussed-even at f8 (beyond which aberrations kill resolution anyway-f5.6 is best here) because the camera image field-that of the lens curvature is circular, not flat ( see the photozone APS-C test for this lens).I was really heartbroken to discover this at huge cost, as I had traded in my perfectly good 1Ds MkII believing from reviews that the Nikon zoom-my standard go to lens -was much better than Canon's.Not only was it not, but additionally if you want detail and do landscapes the red/green fringing on the 24-70mm nano nikkor is so bad you get three images of all detail outside the central area-making it useless for film and bad on 36MP

If you shooting landscapes, you should not be using zooms, only primes.

In a perfect world, sensor/film matches capability of lens. Just use the best primes you can afford, and accept the results. If camera manufacturers do not make the perfect camera and lens up to your perfect standards, don't buy them.

Why sooooooo much bickering? Go ahead and enjoy your D800/E, the D810 just slightly better, both great capturing machines. For me personally, don't have Neither, so choice easy, beings price of both same. If i could afford, would get Pentax 645z. I can guarantee you, i will love using my next camera. If any photographer is truly out in the field using their camera, he or she shouldn't have so much time to worry soooooo much what camera soon to be released.

Terrible misinformation and pseudo-science there, munro! Besides, your experience seems to be at odds with a lot of others, including the testing labs.

The bottom line is... if you can't take sharper images with better equipment, you'd be foolish to part with so much money to upgrade. Most people I know, who are quality focused in their work, do notice a difference. And so do I.

Enjoy your photography and shoot what you feel most comfortable with. Just, refrain from confusing personal feelings and technique with technical measurements.

@Galbertson - "Why sooooo much bickering?" - - - Perfect! In my opinion, there are those who want to appear to know it all. There are those who rely too much on the gadget instead of using their eyes and imagination to create the picture they like. There are those who are NEVER pleased with the photos (or "data" as one reader put it) captured by their lens, camera and digital memory card, hence, insists on taking RAW file only and processing that data to create the viewable picture.

For me, photography is a hobby to capture scenes, events, and everything else that gives me pleasure viewing over and over.

Cul?I am not a lobbied, sponsored, advertizing test lab, but if you do go by them and not me try actually reading DXO on, for example CA on the 24-70 nikkor and Photozone de. on the field curvature problems.I am here to try to get people like you to avoid the suffering falling as I did for this lens caused me. I own use and love my D800 dearly, and everything I have said here is true. I go ENTIRELY by what comes out of the cameras, and tell you what I see.

The D810 is the same price as the D800e, and given that it is the development of the D800e, that's understandable.

You are sorely mistaken about lenses being unable to out-resolve a 16Mpixel sensor. Roger at LensRentals has measured a great many lenses on the D800 (and he measures multiple samples of each) - I suggest you read his results.

Still, you are under no obligation to buy a D810. Feel free to use a D800 if you have one, or something else, if that's what you have.

I told myself I didn't need the D810 as an upgrade over the D800e. I wanted it. I traded in my D800e on it. I am not regretting it! YMMV :)

IF I did not have a D800 already, and had no full-frame Nikon at all, and wanted one, it goes without saying I woyuld buy a D810. BUT, the fact remains that at this size focus has to be spot on, and depth of field too for landscape shots to succeed.As to primes, well folks, list to my rant! They shrink your vision. You have to go around looking for 24mm or 50mm or 105mm shots etc. You have mentally to be a limited 35mm 50mm or 105mm viewfinder yourself- you have to become only that. The pictures can be good, sure, but they are only certain types of pictures, rather than the infinity of types a great zoom makes POSSIBLE.

Hence the NEED for sharp zoom lenses. Their lack is wrecking photography's ability to progress visually.

And the other factor is the dreadful digital colour we are still stuck with. Do you realize that a correctly balanced spectrum in camera would mean you did not have to waste weeks of your life trying to get the reds somewhere near what you saw etcetera. We still have 1999 colour- these has been NO progress. Progress is no need for ANY correction at all. You are still paying several thousands for an inherently defective machine that then requires expensive time-consuming software to be able to function at all.

@munro harrap - Reading your post in this thread, specially the last two makes me wonder if you have taken time to know your D800. While I do not totaly agree with Galbertson's statement of limiting landscape shots to prime lenses, your rant on color, sharpness, and claim the the D800 being a defective machine is irresponsible. Since you claim earlier that you LOVE your D800, I wonder if you keep track of your posts.

Would be nice to know how you set you camera, the lighting of the subject, where you view your photos (the LCD on your camera or computer), the color calibration of the computer, etc.

Other than cropping, straightening and adjusting light intensity to correct for under or over exposure to SUIT MY PREFERENCE, I practically avoid post processing. I have adjusted and customized the setting for the type of photos I want to take (Action, Portrait, Landscape, and General photography). I have created several customized WB. My computer monitor is color calibrated.

Nothing special. Calibrated 2713H monitor, all from Adobe RGB RAWs, camera set to -2 and standard for nature and neutral and -2 saturation for people shots as dayglo reds and pinks are dreadful.process in Capture NX2 with camera settings, but I might try changing the neutral on people shots to portrait if the reds and pinks are the kind you can do this with (not many!).

The camera is the THIRD I have had. The first had AF problems and bad colour, the second trashed completely the odd raw file and had bad colour, and this one direct from Nikon they claim is perfect but the colour is as bad (which is why they gave me NX to help out). But despite this reds visibly shift in highlights unacceptably and obviously- to what depends on the initial hue.

For happy snaps using sRGB I have no idea as I do not cripple my colour work using sRGB. So I dont post Abobe RGB jpegs now, as last time every impertinent fellow demanded I send RAWs to Dropbox, as if using sRGB they could not see the problem

If Nikon D800 is not good enough for you, how about ditching your Nikon D800 in favor of Canon or Hasselblad or Olympus, or Leica or Pentax or Sony.

You must be a very important customer of Nikon for them to GIVE you Capture NX2. I only have the basic Nikon View NX2 and I don't have any problem with photos taken with Nikon D90, D5100, D600 and D800. My fallback PP is the old PhotoShop 7.0.

I do very little PP. I definitely do not waste my time pixel peeping. You and I have divergent setting because we have different preference. I wonder if you have experimented with different setting. I did until I found the settings most pleasing to me.

I am confused by your last paragraph. The first sentence of that paragraph is contradictory. In the last sentence, you put RAW and sRGB as if you are treating RAW to be an sRGB. That very much confused me.

You made me feel being in a gondola lifted by hot air with the strong wind pushing the gondola in 360 degree different directions.

The Nikon D810 is sth better, of course...but costs also more than twice then the A7R - for neglible more performance, also it's much more heavy, and i must say the best thing with E-Mount ever is that you can virtually adapt every lens from the past 60-70 years, that doesn't work with most DSLR because of the mirror box, and bajonet flange. *If* i would have the money, i'd go for E-Mount, not Nikon anymore...it's just too heavy, too expensive (good lenses) and take too much space into the bag anyway - but i do enjoy shooting with my APS-C Nikon's, but i won't upgrade them to FF, because of size and price issues, i'd go for Sony. For example, it's way cheaper (and more fun) using the A7 with legacy mf primes for myself rather than buying the D610 with the 35/1.4 Sigma...much more expensive, no aperture control onto the lens, plastic lens body, etc...and more weight into my bag anyway.

The D810 outperforms the A7r in every tangible feature.Shutter lagAfAF tracking low lightdynamic rangehand holdableshutter noiseand is backed by a real system with about 70 or so lenses currently available to choose from.If these things are not important to you; coolWhile the A7R is a nice camera, the D810 is a great system!

@Bamboojled I agree with you. I have both cameras now and the D810 is the one I currently use for more serious work. That doesn't mean that I don't take the A7r seriously! In fact I love it for some things. It just means when I have the choice, and weight is not an issue, the D810 is working better for me as part of a wider system.

People sometimes try to explain away the advantages of systems they don't have as a way to reassure themselves that they're not missing anything. That's fine too, if it helps them feel good about what they are using.

well, you can choose virtually *any* lens mount, via adapter,not the very few native e-mount lenses, isn't that enough?

Of course - the D810 is better than the A7R, but it depends - i wouldn't carry the extra weight of a D810 plus lens combo compared to the A7R with lens, and i wouldn't also spent morethen twice the money the A7R costs here into germany, for instance, for a D810 body, it's simply too much.

A99m2 with a A7s sensor @ 14-18mp , 8-9 FPS, 2800-3000 dollars. It doesn't need to be "low light king", just as long as it is closely comparable or similiar to Nikon Df low light, and give it a proper AF pls (consult canon if need arises).

@Galbertson It's mainly a question of weight, yes. The A7r is an excellent camera for times I just don't need/want a full system with me. But if someone pays me enough to do a set up, it wouldn't be my first choice.

When I have an A7r and a Nikon D810 sitting side by side, it's the Nikon that gets picked up. I prefer using it, and I get better results with it. I've never found the size of a DSLR to be a problem on jobs and it balances nicely with the lenses I prefer. I love the smaller cameras for pockets and backpacks when I'm not working and weight is an issue.

I'm certainly happy we straightened that out..."The D810 outperforms the A7r in every tangible feature."Depends on what you consider tangible --and some of those you list are really too close to call.I'm not a pro...don't shoot sports, seldom use AF, and after carrying SLR's around for years, have no interest in that form-factor, or the OVF.I'm looking ahead to improvements in milcs. My Nex has interface issues, but nothing that's a deal-breaker, and they just get better.

I realize that, but I figured arguably the most important aspect would be at least briefly touched on in such a detailed preview, that went into detail of far smaller features. I was just curious though, I will wait for the review :). Thanks.

It definitely has, all reports including other credible reviews show the AF to be nothing less than astonishingly good. Nearly everyone is reporting they no longer need AF fine tune on any combo, including those with TC's, as well. Looks to be a winner. I was just curious of DPreview's take on it, but I expect it to match everyone else's, which is glowing.

We're actually looking at AF right now (Rishi is shooting at a wedding with the D810 and fast lenses) so we should have some findings soon. I was one of those people who never had an issue with the D800 bodies that I used, and the D810 gives identical-feeling performance, to be honest. We'll do more work on this, but for now the addition of the group-area AF mode is the only major change that we've noticed. Naturally though, we haven't yet had time to point the D810 at a particularly wide range of subjects.

I'll be curious to read your findings, especially with so many people, including other respected reviewers, noting huge improvements in general speed, lock on, confidence, accuracy, lack of focus chatter, etc. In fact I've yet to read a single review or user report that hasn't said it is vastly improved. A wedding is a perfect torture test though, and I will be curious to see the outcome. Thanks for the reply!

To be fair, DPR said this: "The D800's low light focusing ability is impressive, among the better performing cameras we've seen" of the D800 ... and it's widely regarded as having one of the worst performing autofocus in recent memory (even after the left-side-AF inaccuracy that Nikon fixes via warranty).

There's one poster, either here or on NikonRumors, that says all his lenses required +9 on af finetuning. That sounded a bit strange to me, as it appears very unusual that either, all your lenses just happen to be equally calibrated (or just perefect), or that particular body's af just happened to off by nine steps on every lens that you put on it. Certainly doesn't work that way with my D800. All four primes front focus, but in different amounts.

"it's widely regarded as having one of the worst performing autofocus in recent memory" Haha is that some sort of joke? Other than a small number of affected users with early serials, the D800/E already had one of the best AF systems in the segment, with better low light acquisition and tracking than a 5DM3. In fact I know a few people who ditched their 5DM3's specifically for the D800's low light AF ability for weddings. The fact that the D810 has improved on this is quite amazing.

It's the AF is fast, no doubt... and great when it works... but it's simply off at a rate that's unacceptable. I've personally used the D800 since it came out, had it sent to Nikon a few times (no luck as it came back 'within spec') and I know a dozen or so other people that have had the same experience: the AF just isn't trustworthy (compared to the D700, D3, D4, D300, D4s, or any other modern Nikon). It's like trying to work with a dull knife. Quite a few of those dozen sold and went back to the D700... reliability of AF is more important in some fields (weddings being a great example) than specs..

Now, it could be the way that certain people shoot (1.4 vs f8) or it could simply be bad QC that's put enough bad D800's into the mix that they've gotten a bad rep among pros... but the fact of the matter is, that when I need an image to be 'in focus' with a shallower DoF (especially screw-driven AF) I grab the D3 (yeah, almost 7 years old) over the D800 every single time.

@ Joe - Downsize the D800 'out of focus' shot to 12MP and I'd be prepared to bet it will look the same as the 'in focus' shot from the D3. The point being that 36MP is EXTREMELY demanding. Easy to forget, given that we're all in the habit of going straight to 100%.

@EricCul - great to hear about the D810. I like to think I've also produced a lot of great work with my D800 - it's not like it NEVER hits... I use it basically any image I have time to set up, take the shot, check focus, and re-take a shot if the camera failed me.... AND I know I'll want the added resolution. Formals, posed informals, landscapes, etc. Don't get me wrong, the sensor is great... the AF leaves a lot to be desired,however. (if nothing else, the silly "middle of the frame " DX-sized cluster Nikon keeps peddling ...hah!)

@Barney -- I agree that the additional resolution is much more demanding of both technique and lenses. Often times a downsize DOES in fact make it look more in focus... however, it also produces shots that are simply, actually, out of focus (ie: the ear is in focus even the the AF point was on the eye) at a rate way higher than the D700 or D3 (or D4, D4s, etc). Still a reasonable camera... but that doesn't mean the AF isn't it's weak point (imho).

I bought my D800 6 months ago, and I must say that I haven't been too impressed of it (same applies to D7000 that I also had for same ammount of time before it, it also didn't have the AF I hoped). The AF doesn't seem to focus sharp enough. Sometimes it is off, sometimes it just isn't pin sharp. It's almost as if only the manual focus is trustworthy solution, but it's very hard to see the best lines with the viewfinder (not enough magnification). Alot of comparisons say 5d3 has better AF, and that even D700 has better. If this is the case, why is it that nikon can't put some more money into developing a more trustworthy AF for these cameras?

@AllOtherNamesTaken: Ming Thein reports he had to refine the autofocus, too, but less so than with his D800. Checked my settings again, three needed +9 as one commentary indicated already before, I adjusted the 50/1.8G today. Needed +2, 18-35G needed -2. So could be a coincidence with the +9 of the others. I find the autofocus to be extremely precise, when adjusted (I do the fine tuning using my retina display as described here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3182827).

"Less so". That's not a major improvement. Considering the demands of 36MP, the inevitable manufacturing tolerances and the field curvature which many lenses exhibit, fine tuning would appear to be the norm. As long as the AF of the body is consistent, that's fine with me, and worth the fine tuning effort.

...........Compared to the D800, images from the D810 look like they've had a veil removed............... OK, but is this due to the elimination of the low pass filter OR the new Clarity feature in Picture Controls? (I'm surprised you do not discuss the Clarity feature)

With Clarity set fairly high (as it is in some Picture styles) the images definitely look more snappy in MY preliminary tests. The key is to compare a D800 vs. D810 image .... made with the D810 Clarity control set to OFF. (I have not done so yet)

You can set Clarity high in Adobe Camera Raw with any camera but the D810 has this feature in-camera, and it is ON by default (at various levels depending on the Picture style in use) ... while the D800 does not.

The specifications you list for AE bracketing differ from those in the D810 manual. You have it as "±5 (2, 3, 5, 7 frames at 1/3 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV steps)", whereas according to the manual, steps of 2 and 3 EV are available at 3 and 5 frames. This is of importance to those shooting for HDR. Could you clear this up. please, before I spend a lot of money on something which (if your present version is correct) does not do what I need??

@HowaboutRAWThe A7/R/S Series use a 11+7bit Delta compression in RAW terms,for myself, i'd be happier with a true 14bit lossless or lossy RAW compression -but let's face it - it seems almost *all* current Sony DSLR/DSLMs are using that kind of delta RAW compression - and you just can't say that the results into RAW from the A7/R/S or A77, II & A99 are just bad, period - no offence.I'm happy with my A3000, NEX5 & A7 series with the RAW results, into the end, the picture, composition counts, not any technical camera specs onto paper.

And yes, there's a difference between 12/14 bit RAW, lossy & lossless compression, but negligble, i've read the results ages ago onto the net which tested the D300(s) with 12 & 14bits for example, my D7000 shoots always 12bit RAW, and about 1-2% into 14bits lossless when it does really count. About the A7R shutter: i don't find it that annoying, but i don't own the A7R, but have had it in my hands. I shoot RAW since 2001 (Oly C-5050Z).

For sure, that does exist, but...i've never seen sth like that into the real world, from my A7 Pictures yet, i mean, no compression artefacts, to be exactly.

One has to mention that these are also way special circumstances. I hope Sony would include a real lossless compressed 12 & 14bits RAW Mode, for instance, my Sony DSC V3 from 2004 already recorded 14bit RAW files.

I don't think I've ever called the raw results from the A99, A77 and, now A77II, bad. In fact I like all three of those cameras for lower ISOs. And the image quality improves with use of the good A mount SonyZeiss lenses.

I don't like the fact that a Sony sales representative told me, in person, that that the A77 would be nearly noise free at ISO 6400. Nor do I like it when Sony claims the mirror doesn't impede high ISO performance one bit--when clearly the Nikon D610 is a better high ISO body than the A99, but uses nearly the same sensor.

I don't spend a lot of effort reading up on the exact terms of the raw compression used for the A mirrorless, but the results seem consistently weak. And it is simply baffling as to why Sony insists on this compression, when Sony has perfectly good to excellent lenses for this system. (I guess smaller raws allow for faster frame rates, well then Sony should provide a choice.)

Could you explain why you speak devotedly regarding your Sony equipment and experience? How does this specifically relate to Nikon D810? I must be missing something. Or shouldn't your words have been posted in Sony A7 review instead?

Photoshop. GoPro. Every once in a while a product emerges that defines a category. And sometimes, it vanishes just as quickly as it arrived on the scene. This week's Throwback Thursday remembers the Flip, the pocket camcorder everyone had – until they didn't.

After a popular Facebook teaser and some studio portrait samples, Godox has finally officially released the Godox A1 smartphone flash and flash trigger. Cheap, versatile and innovative, color us intrigued.

Canon’s EOS 5D Mk IV has won the European Imaging and Sound Association’s Professional DSLR of the Year award, making this the third year in a row that the brand has beaten Nikon to the top spot in the professional camera category.

Edward Weston was one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century, and in this episode of Advancing Your Photography we learn the extreme technique he used to capture one of his most famous still life photos.

Venus Optics has announced the price and delivery date of the second lens to join its Zero-D line up: the 15mm F2 for Sony’s E mount. A lens they've dubbed, "the world's fastest 15mm rectilinear lens for full-frame."

The Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM is an understated jewel of a lens, and one that we've enjoyed on a variety of cameras since its release almost five years ago. Its relatively small size and image stabilization make it a versatile tool for a variety of photography - check out our sample gallery.

You don't need a fancy studio or tons of gear to capture the kind of classic product photography you see in magazines. In this video, Dustin Dolby shows you how to do it with just a couple of speedlights and some know-how.

The Minolta MC Rokkor-X 40-80mm F2.8 is unlike any zoom lens you've probably ever seen. Instead of a helicoid, it uses a gearbox, and because of this it's still one of the sharpest zoom lenses out there.

If you're looking to switch to Sony, the company's new limited-time "α trade up" promotion can snag you up to $500 + trade-in value towards a brand new a9, a7 II, a7R II, or a7S II when you hand over your DSLR or mirrorless camera.

The Google Camera app exclusive to the company's own Pixel phone has been unofficially ported to other Android devices. If you're willing to take the risk of installing, you can now use features like HDR+ on the Galaxy S8, LG G6, OnePlus 5, and more.